____________________________________________________ THE GOSPEL OBSERVER "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). ____________________________________________________ September 5, 1993 ____________________________________________________ Violations of Congregational Independence by Glenn Melton Introduction ``And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed'' (Acts 14:23). ``Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood'' (Acts 20:28). ``The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock'' (I Pet. 5:1-3). It was God's design, and legislation, that each congregation of His people be independent of other congregations in worship, work, and discipline. Each church was (is) to have its own overseers and these overseers were (are) to conduct the affairs of the church in harmony with the divine instructions given through the apostles and prophets. But, God's mandates can be, and have been, violated. Let us look at some ways congregational independence can be violated. Violations Of Congregational Independence 1. TWO OR MORE CHURCHES UNDER ONE ELDERSHIP. From Acts 14:23 we learn that God intended for each congregation to have elders. For a congregation to seek to be under the eldership of another congregation would be a violation of this regulation. For an eldership to extend its oversight to a second congregation--even guidance--would violate I Peter 5:1-3 where Peter teaches elders that their oversight is limited to the ''...flock of God which is among you....'' 2. MEDDLING IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANOTHER CHURCH. One church has not been given the right to attempt to direct (or, meddle in) the affairs of any other congregation. Some ways in which they may be violated. (A) By ``church A'' attempting to dictate to ``church B'' who may and who may not be fellowshipped. (B) Trying to build up ``church A'' by influencing people to leave ``church B.'' Our concern here does not relate to recognized and approved efforts to start a new congregation. But to those who for any number of reasons might choose to leave a congregation. Then, having left try to influence others to leave. Unless brethren are sinning by staying where they are, we had better leave well enough alone. It is one thing to try to get an individual to leave a church because he will be lost if he does not (as in leaving a denomination or leaving institutionalism and such like) and influencing him to jump from one church to another. QUESTION: If a sinning brother leaves ``church A'' and seeks to be identified with ``church B,'' can ``church A'' inform ``church B'' of the circumstances under which the brother left without violating congregational independence? First century churches sometimes used letters of recommendation (Acts 18:27). If ``church A'' can recommend an individual to ``church B'' without violating its independence, then it would seem reasonable that ``church A'' could inform ``church B'' of a brother's circumstances if it is felt that he is not pleasing in the sight of God. The motivation being, not to dictate the actions of another church, but to effect the salvation of the soul of the sinning brother. ``Church B'' would have to make its own decision as to what to do with the brother in question. 3. SPONSORING CHURCH TYPE OF COOPERATION. One eldership does not have the right to surrender part of its treasury to another eldership (or, board) for the purpose of (1) preaching the gospel or (2) any brotherhood work such as a hospital, benevolent institution, or school of any kind. First century churches sent funds directly to preachers (II Corin. 11:8,9; Philip. 4:15-18). Also, first century churches sent funds to a receiving church (or, churches) in which there was a benevolent need which could not be met without the aid of other churches (Acts 11:27-30; II Cor. 8, 9; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Romans 15). The activities of the Highland church in Abilene, Texas, in receiving funds from hundreds of churches to produce the Herald of Truth Radio and TV Program is in direct violation of I Pet. 5:1-3. The Highland elders did not confine their oversight to the ''...flock of God which is among you.'' It is evident that they are overseeing the work of hundreds of churches. The same is true of every sponsoring church and board (such as the board at Childhaven). 4. INDIVIDUAL BENEVOLENT NEEDS. In the introduction it was observed that each church is responsible for its work, worship, and discipline. A part of the work of the church is to relieve certain benevolent needs of the members of the congregation as was done in Acts 6 (Cf. I Tim. 5:16). If ``brother A'' finds himself in need, his need is to be relieved by the church of which he is a member. This does not preclude the benevolence of individuals. But, for the standpoint of congregational responsibility, the work of relieving his benevolent needs stands with the eldership (church) where he is a member. If the church is unable to meet his needs then the scriptures teach that other churches may help by sending benevolent funds to the eldership where the needy brother is (Acts 11:27-30). What are some of the ways in which congregational responsibility in benevolence is violated? (1) If ``church A'' forms a benevolent home either under its own eldership (such as the Tipton, Oklahoma church did, forming Tipton Orphan Home) or forms a board (such as Childhaven has) separate and apart from any congregation and independent of congregational responsibility, but shifting it to another church or human organization. James 1:27 is not authority for ``church A'' or a human institution to accept the benevolent responsibilities of any church. (2) Another violation of congregational responsibility in benevolence is for a church, or churches, to send benevolent funds directly to a needy brother in another congregation rather than to the elders of the church where the needy brother is. By sending the benevolent funds to the eldership where the needy brother is, that eldership can perform its God-given responsibility to that brother. Even if the brother happens to be a well known preacher, that still does not give churches the right to send benevolent funds directly to him. His benevolent needs are to be met either by individuals who share their bounty or by the eldership where he is a member. If that eldership, with the treasury of the church where they are elders, cannot relieve his needs then other churches can scripturally send benevolent funds to that eldership so that the receiving eldership can supply the needs of that brother. Is this not what is taught in Acts 11:27-30; II Cor. 8, 9; I Peter 5:1-3). How many churches of Christ send benevolent funds directly to a needy Christian in another congregation I do not know, but I do know that it has been practiced to some degree even among conservative churches. The question is this: Where is the authority for a church of Christ to send benevolent funds directly to a member of another congregation? I can find where a church can send benevolent funds to another eldership (Acts 11:27-30), but I cannot find authority for an eldership sending benevolent funds directly to a needy saint who is a member of another congregation. The objection is not to benevolent needs being met, in fact, they should be met, but SCRIPTURALLY. Conclusion Congregational independence must be preserved if we are to please God. There are numerous ways of violating it, some of which lead to institutionalism as we have seen during the past three decades. But, not all violations of congregational independence lead to institutionalism. Brethren, let's be sure that we do not violate the independence of another church of Christ. -- from The Voice of Underwood Heights, November 1984. ___________________________________________ "Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips" (Psa. 141:3). ___________________________________________ The Silence of the Lamb of God by Tom Edwards Being God, Jesus could have easily called down twelve legions of angels to save Him from the terrible cross He faced (Matt. 26:53). Being God, the Lord had the power to simply say the word and His enemies could have been utterly destroyed; but He did not use His power in this way--nor did He allow His apostles to resort to physical violence for the sake of His defense. When being harshly accused by those who railed at Him, Jesus remained reserved and did not retaliate (1 Pet. 2:23). Even when He stood before Pilate, while being falsely and maliciously charged, He did not try to defend His own innocence (Matt. 27:12). Seven hundred years before the incarnation of Christ, Isaiah wrote about this reticence by depicting the Lord as a ``lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth'' (Isa. 53:7). Though a lamb led to slaughter is probably oblivious to where it is going, this was not so in the case of Jesus--He knew He had the suffering of the cross to face; and this He did, not only willing (Jn. 10:17,18), but also joyfully (Heb. 12:2). Christ's silence before His accusers is a testimony toward His love for humanity, His love for His Father, and His determination to carry out the will of God--even to the point of death on the cross. Sometimes quietness has much to say. Let us not forget this noble greatness that calls out to us from the silence of the Lamb of God. ___________________________________________ NEWS & NOTES Write today for a FREE BIBLE COURSE. We would be happy to send one to you right away. ___________________________________________ Believe and Turn "...a large number who believed TURNED to the Lord" (Acts 11:21). What good would their believing had been had they not also TURNED to God? Though many people feel that the one who believes has also automatically repented, this passage indicates repentance to be a separate act: one believes and THEN turns, but the faith comes first. How does one turn? In the physical sense it involves going in a different direction. This is also true of the one who submits to the gospel: he is now following a new course, which began with faith, repentance, and baptism; and continues with faithfulness toward the gospel throughout life. Mental acceptance toward Christ's deity is only part of it. We turn to God by repenting of wrong and doing what He commands. -- Tom Edwards ________________________________________ Tri-State CHURCH OF CHRIST 1314 Montgomery Avenue, Ashland, Kentucky 41101 Sunday: 10:00 A.M. Bible class 10:50 A.M. Worship 6:30 P.M. Worship Wednesday: 7:30 P.M. Bible study evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (606) 325-9742 e-mail: tedwards@zoomnet.net Gospel Observer web site: http://www.zoomnet.net/~tedwards/go ________________________________________